1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the judgment of the court of first instance or adding it to the judgment below to the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the following phrases shall be added in front of the last half of the decision:

[In a case where there is a difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the intention of the party expressed in the disposition document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da212859, Jun. 29, 20

3. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part to be mard shall be as follows up to the "non-assigning" of the third column of the judgment of first instance to the "non-assigning" of the fourth column.

[The above agreement was reached on the premise that the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 430,00,000 for the construction cost of this case. According to the construction contract of this case, the compensation for delay can be immediately deducted from the construction cost (Article 20(3) of the construction contract of this case). If the number of delayed days has already been determined and the compensation for delay is multiplied by the rate and the contract amount for delay determined in advance, the amount can be easily estimated (Article 20(1) of the construction contract of this case; Article 20(1) of the construction contract of this case; and Article 430,000,000 of the construction price of this case did not require the Plaintiff to deduct the compensation for delay, or at least after consultation with the Defendant, to pay the said amount without delay. At the time of the agreement, the Plaintiff was in a situation requiring the cancellation of collateral security in the name of the Defendant to sell the real estate of this case to a third party.